While control conditions are vitally important in research, selecting the optimal control condition can be challenging. Problems are likely to arise when the choice of control condition is not tightly guided by the specific question that a given study aims to address. Such problems have become increasingly apparent in experimental psychopathology research investigating the experimental modification of cognitive biases, particularly as the focus of this research has shifted from theoretical questions concerning mechanistic aspects of the association between cognitive bias and emotional vulnerability, to questions that instead concern the clinical efficacy of ‘cognitive bias modification’ (CBM) procedures. We discuss the kinds of control conditions that have typically been employed in CBM research, illustrating how difficulties can arise when changes in the types of research questions asked are not accompanied by changes in the control conditions employed. Crucially, claims made on the basis of comparing active and control conditions within CBM studies should be restricted to those conclusions allowed by the specific control condition employed. CBM studies aiming to establish clinical utility are likely to require quite different control conditions from CBM studies aiming to illuminate mechanisms. Further, conclusions concerning the clinical utility of CBM interventions cannot necessarily be drawn from studies in which the control condition has been chosen to answer questions concerning mechanisms. Appreciating the need to appropriately alter control conditions in the transition from basic mechanisms-focussed investigations to applied clinical research could greatly facilitate the translational process.

The modeling of abnormal behavior in ‘normal’ subjects (often animals) has a long history in pharmacological research for the screening of novel drug compounds. Systematic criteria have been outlined in that literature to estimate the external validity of a model, that is to estimate how closely the model is linked to the disorder of interest. Experimental psychopathology (EPP) also uses behavioral models to study the psychological processes that underlie abnormal behavior. Although EPP researchers may occasionally feel uneasy about the validity of the model that they use, the issue has not received direct attention in this literature. Here, we review the criteria of validity as set out in pharmacology research (face, predictive and construct validity) and discuss their relevance for EPP research. Furthermore, we propose diagnostic validity as an additional criterion of external validity that is relevant to EPP research. We evaluate two models for the study of anxiety and depression, and show that they have good face, diagnostic and construct validity. However, EPP research generally lacks direct tests of predictive validity. We conclude that combined evaluations of predictive, diagnostic and construct validity provide a sound basis to infer the external validity of behavioral models in EPP research.